I live in the real world – always have. I’ve been a journalist who goes where the facts lead him all my life – unlike most of my colleagues whose “facts” are predetermined by their ideology.

I understand Barack Obama and Bill Ayers because I was one of them early in my life. I even met Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn and Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda in the old days. I admired them. If Obama had been old enough during the 1960s and 1970s, I probably would have run into him, too.

If anyone has a balanced approach to the realities of political life in America, it’s me. I’ve looked at life from both sides. I know the arguments of the other side and can still spout them before most of today’s practitioners of so-called “progressive” thought can.

I also know that the reigning ethos of this movement represented so ably today by Obama is this: “By any means necessary …” It was first articulated by Jean Paul Sartre in his play, “Dirty Hands.” But it became popularized as a slogan of the revolutionary left by Malcolm X.

What it means, in short, is that the ends justify the means. It means violence is fine in achieving a worthwhile objective. It means lying, stealing, cheating and all those other bourgeoisie “sins” are appropriate means of furthering the cause.

Is there any doubt in your mind today that this is now the reigning ethos of the Democratic Party and its various tentacles and allies?

There is no doubt in my mind.

And that’s why stealing the vote is not only an acceptable practice by these people, it is a moral imperative in their twisted worldview.

Am I suggesting that the recent presidential election was stolen through voter fraud and manipulation?

Without a doubt.

Do I have evidence?

Yes, I have plenty of anecdotal evidence to show that it was committed by one side in the election in various ways. And I am convinced that at least 5 percent of the Democratic vote can be attributed to fraud – illegal voters, illegal campaign contributions, rigged balloting, intimidation at the polls, you name it.

Here’s just some of the evidence for the skeptical:

In September, the Columbus Dispatch in Ohio reported this sad and ugly news: “More than one out of every five registered Ohio voters is probably ineligible to vote. In two counties, the number of registered voters actually exceeds the voting-age population: Northwestern Ohio’s Wood County shows 109 registered voters for every 100 eligible, while in Lawrence County along the Ohio River it’s a mere 104 registered per 100 eligible. Another 31 counties show registrations at more than 90 percent of those eligible, a rate regarded as unrealistic by most voting experts. The national average is a little more than 70 percent. In a close presidential election where every vote might count, which ones to count might become paramount on Election Day – and in possible legal battles afterward.” The Dispatch asked Ohio’s chief elections official, Secretary of State Jon Husted, what could be done about this problem. His answer? Not enough. Nine months ago, he asked U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder for a personal meeting to discuss how to balance seemingly conflicting federal laws so he could pare Ohio’s dirty voter list without removing truly eligible voters. Holder’s office never even bothered to reply – to either Husted or the newspaper. What does that tell you? It tells me voter fraud is and was an important tactic in re-electing Holder’s boss and Democrats throughout the country. Anyway, we all know how Ohio voted.

How about Michigan – Romney’s home state? How did Obama win such a resounding victory when the polls showed the two candidates in a virtual tie? And how is it that Obama won by 9 points while Democrats suffered a string of defeats down the entire state ballot? For instance, Republicans maintained control of both the state House and the Supreme Court, while Democrats lost three ballot propositions.

Then, of course, there is the fine work of James O’Keefe and Project Veritas, which demonstrated, over and over again on camera, the willingness and ability of Democratic operatives to cheat and commit fraud to win elections.

How about WND’s own investigation in which it demonstrated conclusively that the Obama campaign welcomed foreign contributions by intentionally leaving vulnerabilities in its web donation page that allowed even those using bogus names, disposable credit cards and foreign IP addresses to donate cash? The classic example was when WND staffers did just this using the name Osama bin Laden, listing his occupation as “deceased terrorist” and employer as “al-Qaida.” The contributions were accepted by the Team Obama, just as it accepted foreign contributions from the Palestinian Authority in 2008, as WND’s Aaron Klein demonstrated.

How much evidence does one need to be convinced? This is just the tip of the iceberg.

Did it make a difference in this close race?

Without question.

Is there anything we can do about it now?

Not likely.

But if we want to ensure that America has free and fair elections in the future, we better get to work. America’s political system is becoming a thugocracy.

I’m challenging the Obama campaign on the acceptance of those illegal donations. I’ve filed a Federal Elections Commission complaint at considerable cost. I have no illusions that it will be easy to challenge a sitting president within his own bureaucracy. But I’m doing it. Meanwhile, some in the press would prefer that I be charged with voter fraud for efforts to expose the system. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if the Democrat machine tries something like that.